Option pricing and hedging with execution costs and market impact arxiv: v8 [q-fin.tr] 3 Apr 2015 Olivier Guéant Jiang Pu

Transcription

1 Opion pricing and hedging wih execuion coss and marke impac arxiv: v8 [q-fin.tr] 3 Apr 2015 Olivier Guéan Jiang Pu Absrac This aricle considers he pricing and hedging of a call opion when liquidiy maers, ha is, eiher for a large nominal or for an illiquid underlying asse. In pracice, as opposed o he classical assumpions of a price-aking agen in a fricionless marke, raders canno be perfecly hedged because of execuion coss and marke impac. They indeed face a rade-off beween hedging errors and coss ha can be solved by using sochasic opimal conrol. Our modelling framework, which is inspired by he recen lieraure on opimal execuion, makes i possible o accoun for boh execuion coss and he lasing marke impac of rades. Prices are obained hrough he indifference pricing approach. Numerical examples are provided, along wih comparisons o sandard mehods. Key words: Opion pricing, Opion hedging, Illiquid markes, Opimal execuion, Sochasic opimal conrol. 1 Inroducion Classical opion pricing heory is based on he hypohesis of a fricionless marke in which agens are price akers: here are no ransacion coss and raders have no impac neiher emporary nor permanen on prices. These assumpions are no realisic, bu he resuling opion pricing models (for insance he Black-Scholes model or he Heson model) are widely used and provide useful resuls as long as he underlying asse is liquid and he nominal is This research has been conduced wih he suppor of he Research Iniiaive Exécuion opimale e saisiques de la liquidié haue fréquence under he aegis of he Europlace Insiue of Finance. The auhors wan o hank Rober Almgren (Quaniaive Brokers), Nicolas Grandchamp des Raux (HSBC France), Charles-Alber Lehalle (CFM), Terry Lyons (Oxford Man), Ramzi Maghrebi (HSBC France), Huyen Pham (Universié Paris-Didero), Chris Rogers (Cambridge), Mahieu Rosenbaum (UPMC) and Guillaume Royer (Ecole Polyechnique) for he discussions we had on he opic. The auhors also wan o hank wo anonymous referees for heir commens on our paper. Universié Paris-Didero, UFR de Mahémaiques, Laboraoire Jacques-Louis Lions, guean@ljll.univparis-didero.fr Insiu Europlace de Finance, jiang.pu.2009@m4x.org 1

2 no oo large. However, for opions on illiquid asses or for opions wih a large nominal compared o he volume commonly raded on he marke of he underlying asse, execuion coss and marke impac canno be ignored. Several improvemens o he Black-Scholes model have been made o accoun for ransacion coss. The basic idea is ha high frequency hedging coss are prohibiive due o ransacion fees, whereas low frequency hedging leads o large racking errors. Leland proposed in [21] one of he firs models o deal wih ransacion coss in he conex of opion pricing. Oher models of fricional markes wih eiher fixed ransacion coss or ransacion coss proporional o he raded volume include [6], [11], and [12]. Two oher roues have been considered o accoun for marke imperfecions in opion pricing models. The firs roue is usually referred o as he supply curve approach. In his approach, inroduced by Çein, Jarrow and Proer [7] (see also [3] and [8, 9]), raders are no price akers, and he price hey pay depends on he quaniy hey rade. Alhough appealing, his framework leads o prices idenical o hose in he Black-Scholes model. Çein, Soner and Touzi [10] consider he same approach bu hey resric he se of admissible sraegies (see also [23]) o obain posiive liquidiy coss and prices ha evenually depar from hose in he Black-Scholes model. We model execuion coss (liquidiy coss) differenly because our framework is inspired by he lieraure on opimal execuion (see [1, 16, 28]). The second roue has o do wih he impac of -hedging on he dynamics of he underlying asse, 1 and he resuling feedback effec on he price of he opion. An imporan amoun of lieraure exiss on his opic, herefore we refer o [25], [29] and [30] for he differen modelling approaches. To ake accoun of his effec, we use he same linear form of permanen marke impac as in mos papers on opimal execuion. In addiion o hese wo roues, a new approach has recenly emerged, in relaion wih he lieraure on opimal execuion. Rogers and Singh [26] and Li and Almgren [22] consider approaches inspired by his lieraure, and similar o ours. In heir seings, he auhors consider execuion coss ha are no linear in he volume execued bu insead are convex o accoun for liquidiy effecs. Rogers and Singh consider an objecive funcion ha penalizes boh execuion coss and he mean-squared hedging error a mauriy. They obain, in his close-o-mean-variance framework, a closed form approximaion for he opimal hedging sraegy when illiquidiy coss are small. Li and Almgren, moivaed by he swings observed in US sock prices in July 2012, consider a model wih boh permanen and emporary impacs, whereas Rogers and Singh do no examine permanen marke impac in [26]. They use a mean-variance opimizaion crierion where he hedging error is he main variable. They consider he case of quadraic execuion coss and use a consan-γ approximaion in order o obain a closed form expression for he hedging sraegy. 1 This impac was observed in July 2012 hrough saw-ooh paerns on he prices of five major US socks (see [19, 20, 22]). 2

3 Insead of focusing on a special case ha leads o closed form expressions, our goal is o consider a general model. We use a general form for he execuion coss and we examine he influence of permanen marke impac. The opimizaion crierion we consider is an expeced uiliy applied o final wealh. Therefore, we characerize he opimal sraegy wih a parial differenial equaion (PDE), and we rely on numerical mehods o approximae he soluion of he PDE and he opimal hedging sraegy. Anoher difference is ha we accoun for ineres rae. Furhermore, neiher [22] nor [26] disinguish physical delivery from cash selemen. In his paper, we show how hedging sraegies and opion prices are impaced by he ype of selemen. In erms of (parial) hedging sraegies, boh [22] and [26] obain opimal sraegies ha are mean revering around he classical. This is no he case in our expeced uiliy framework: our opimal sraegy does no oscillae around a soluion wihou execuion coss and marke impac. The opimal sraegies in our model are smooher han classical -hedging sraegies because he rader seeks o avoid round rips on he sock, which enail execuion coss upon purchase and sale of shares. In he case of a physical selemen, smooh sraegies are also linked o he fac ha he rader is averse boh o price risk and o he binary risk of having o deliver versus no delivering. By comparing our sraegies wih classical -hedging sraegies for differen frequencies of rebalancing, we show ha our approach makes i possible o reach very low levels of variance while miigaing execuion coss. In paricular, we observe ha for he frequency of rebalancing ha leads o he same level of execuion coss, he variance of he PnL associaed wih our sraegy is lower han he one obained wih a classical -hedging sraegy. In addiion o opimal hedging sraegies, our expeced CARA uiliy framework provides prices by using he indifference pricing approach. We compue he amoun a clien needs o pay o compensae, in uiliy erms, he payoff of he opion when he rader uses he opimal hedging sraegy. We find ha he price of a call is higher in he presence of execuion coss han in he classical model, and ha his price is an increasing funcion of he illiquidiy of he underlying asse and he nominal of he opion. Alhough we concenrae on he case of a call opion hroughou he paper, he same approach can be used for oher ypes of opions. In paricular, a similar approach is used o price and hedge Acceleraed Share Repurchase conracs (see [15, 18]). These conracs are Asian-ype opions wih Bermudan-syle exercise daes and a physical delivery. The remainder of he ex is organized as follows. In Secion 2, we presen he basic hypoheses of our model and we inroduce he Hamilon-Jacobi-Bellman equaion associaed wih he problem. In Secion 3, we solve he conrol problem wihou permanen marke impac, and we show ha he price of he opion saisfies a nonlinear PDE. In Secion 4, we hen show how our soluion can be exended o he case where here is a permanen marke impac. In Secion 5, we discuss numerical mehods o solve he problem. In Secion 6, we presen he oucomes from several examples, and we compare our model wih he Bachelier model. 3

4 2 Seup of he model 2.1 Noaions ( ) We consider a filered probabiliy space Ω,F, (F ) 0,P ha corresponds o he available informaion on he marke, namely he marke price of a sock up o he observaion ime. For 0 s < T, we denoe P(s, ) he se of R-valued progressively measurable processes on [s, ]. The problem we consider is a bank (or a rader) selling a call opion on a sock o a clien. 2 The call opion has a nominal N (in shares), a srike K, and a mauriy T. Execuion process Because of he execuion coss, he bank is no able o replicae he opion. However i buys and sells shares progressively o (parially) hedge is risky posiion. To model he execuion process, we firs inroduce he marke volume process (V ), ha is assumed o be deerminisic, nonnegaive, and bounded. The rading is consrained o no go oo fas, relaive o he marke volume, by imposing a maximum paricipaion rae ρ m. The number of shares in he hedging porfolio is herefore modelled as 3 : q = q 0 + ˆ 0 v s ds, where he sochasic process v belongs o he se of admissible sraegies A defined by: A := {v P(0, T ), v ρ m V, a.e. in (0, T ) Ω}. Remark 1. The marke volume process can be used o model overnigh risk by assuming V = 0 when he marke is closed. Price process The price process of he underlying asse is defined under he hisorical probabiliy as an Io process of he form 4 : ds = µd + σdw + kv d, where k 0 models permanen marke impac and where µ is ypically a view on he fuure rend of he underlying asse. We consider a linear form for he permanen marke impac o avoid dynamic arbirage (see he analysis of Gaheral [14]). The more general framework proposed in [17] could be anoher possibiliy bu we believe i is more suied o inraday problems. 2 The reasoning is he same for a pu opion or if he bank is buying he opion. We consider he specific case of a call opion o highligh he difference beween physical delivery and cash selemen. 3 q 0 is he number of shares in he porfolio a incepion. In illiquid markes, especially for corporae deals including opions, he buyer of he call may provide an iniial number of shares (see he discussion in Secion 3). We shall consider below he case where q 0 = 0 and he case where q 0 is se o he iniial Bachelier hanks o an iniial rade wih he buyer. 4 There is no reason o consider a risk-neural probabiliy in our framework, as one canno replicae he payoff of a call opion because of he execuion coss. 4

5 Remark 2. We consider a drifed Bachelier dynamics for he price insead of he classical Black-Scholes framework. This is also he case in Almgren and Li s paper [22]. The underlying reason for his choice is ha we consider a CARA uiliy funcion which is, a priori, incompaible wih a geomeric Brownian moion. The prices we obain are herefore subjec o criicisms when he opion mauriy is long (see e.g., [27] for a comparison beween he Bachelier and he Black-Scholes opion pricing models). Cash accoun and execuion coss The cash accoun of he bank follows a dynamics linked o he hedging sraegy. I is, in paricular, impaced by execuion coss. These execuion coss are modelled hrough he inroducion of a funcion L C(R,R + ) ha verifies he following condiions: L(0) = 0, L is an even funcion, L is increasing on R +, L is sricly convex, L is asympoically super-linear, ha is: L(ρ) lim ρ + ρ = +. For any v A, he cash accoun X evolves as: where r is he risk-free rae. dx = rx d v S d V L ( v V ) d, Remark 3. In applicaions, L is ofen a power funcion of he form L(ρ) = η ρ 1+φ wih φ > 0, or a funcion of he form L(ρ) = η ρ 1+φ + ψ ρ wih φ, ψ > 0 where ψ akes ino accoun proporional coss such as he bid-ask spread or a samp duy. In paricular, he iniial Almgren-Chriss framework corresponds o L(ρ) = ηρ 2 (φ = 1, ψ = 0). A ime T, we consider eiher a physical selemen or a cash sele- Payoff of he opion men. Le us consider he case of a physical selemen. If he opion is exercised, hen he bank receives KN and needs o deliver N shares. Because he hedging porfolio conains q T shares a ime T, he bank has o buy N q T shares o be able o deliver. Thus, if he opion is exercised, hen he payoff of he bank is: X T + KN (N q T )S T L(q T, N) = X T + q T S T + N(K S T ) L(q T, N), where L(q, q ) models he addiional cos over he Mark o Marke (MM) price o go from a porfolio wih q shares o a porfolio wih q shares. 5

6 In he case where he opion is no exercised, he payoff is X T + q T S T L(q T, 0), because he rader needs o liquidae he porfolio. The erm L(q T, 0) is he discoun incurred o liquidae he remaining shares. If we assume ha he opion is exercised if and only if he sock price is above K, 5 hen he oal payoff in he case of physical selemen is: X T + q T S T N(S T K) + 1 ST KL(q T, N) 1 ST <KL(q T, 0). In he case of a cash selemen, he only difference is when he opion is exercised. In ha case, he bank pays N(S T K) and liquidaes is porfolio (wih usually a lo of shares). The liquidaion leads o he following payoff for he bank: X T + q T S T N(S T K) + L(q T, 0). In general, for boh he cash and he physical selemens, he payoff is herefore of he form where Π(q, S) N(S K) +. X T + q T S T Π(q T, S T ), Opimizaion The sochasic opimal conrol problem we consider is: supe [ exp ( γ (X T + q T S T Π(q T, S T )))], v A where γ is he absolue risk aversion parameer of he bank. Remark 4. The penaly funcion L needs o be specified. When here is no permanen marke impac, a naural choice is L(q, q ) = l( q q ) where l is an increasing and convex funcion. 6 One candidae for l is he risk-liquidiy premium of a block rade as in [16]. Anoher candidae is he risk-liquidiy premium associaed wih liquidaion a some consan paricipaion rae ρ (for insance ρ m ): l(q) = ˆ T T L(ρ)V d + γ 2 σ2ˆ T where T T is he firs ime such ha ρv d = q. T T q 2 d = L(ρ) ρ q + γ ˆ T ( 2 σ2 q ρ T ˆ T V s ds) 2 d, 5 The hreshold migh be less han he srike K in an illiquid marke. 6 When permanen marke impac is aken ino accoun, L mus have a specific form o avoid dynamic arbirages (see Secion 4). 6

7 2.2 The value funcion and he HJB equaion To solve he above sochasic opimal conrol problem, we define he value funcion u by: [ ( ( u(, x, q, S) = sup E exp γ X,x,v T v A + q,q,v T S,S,v T ))] Π(q,q,v T, S,S T ), where: A := {v P(, T ), v s ρ m V s, a.e. in (, T ) Ω}, and where: ˆ X,x,v = x + q,q,v = q + ˆ ( rxs,x,v v s Ss,S,v V s L v s ds S,S,v = S + µ( ) + ˆ σdw s + k(q,q,v ( vs V s q). )) ds The Hamilon-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equaion associaed wih his problem is he following: u µ S u 1 2 σ2 2 SSu sup v ρ mv { ( ( ) ) } v v q u + rx vs L V x u + kv S u V = 0, wih he erminal condiion: u(t, x, q, S) = exp ( γ (x + qs Π(q, S))). Remark 5. In he case of a physical selemen, his erminal condiion is no coninuous. 3 Characerizaion of he soluion We firs consider he case wihou permanen marke impac (k = 0). In ha case, we consider a funcion L of he form L(q, q ) = l( q q ), where l is a convex and even funcion ha increases on R + (as exemplified in Remark 4). The following lemma saes ha we can facor ou he compounded MM value of he curren porfolio (we omi he superscrips o improve readabiliy): Lemma 1. X T + q T S T = e r(t ) (x + qs) (ˆ T ˆ T +e r(t ) e r(s ) q s (µ rs s )ds + e r(s ) q s σdw s ˆ T e r(s ) V s L ( vs V s ) ) ds. 7

8 This lemma shows ha he value funcion u(, x, q, S) is of he form: where is defined as J (q, S, v) = E We also define ( ) u(, x, q, S) = exp γe r(t ) (x + qs) inf J (q, S, v). v A [ exp ( γ J : R R A R ( ˆ T e r(s ) V s L e r(t ) (ˆ T (q, S, v) J (q, S, v) ( vs V s ) ) ds ˆ T e r(s ) q s (µ rs s )ds + Π(q T, S T )) ))] e r(t ) θ(, q, S) = inf log(j (q, S, v)). v A γ. e r(s ) q s σdw s The following proposiion saes ha θ is well defined, and gives a lower bound for θ: Proposiion 1. (, q, S) [0, T ] R R, θ(, q, S) is finie. Moreover, if µ = r = 0 hen: θ(, q, S) NE [(S T K) + ]. The funcion θ has a naural inerpreaion. Le us consider a call opion deal beween he bank and a clien, where a ime 0: he bank wries he call opion wih eiher a physical or cash selemen and he clien pays a price P, and he clien gives q 0 shares o he bank and receives q 0 S 0 in cash from he bank. In uiliy erms, he bank gives he following value o his deal ( ) u(0, X 0 q 0 S 0 + P, q 0, S 0 ) = exp γe rt (X 0 + P θ(0, q 0, S 0 )). As a consequence, if P = θ(0, q 0, S 0 ), and if we assume ha he cash is invesed a rae r, hen he bank is indifferen o making he deal or no making he deal. Therefore, θ(0, q 0, S 0 ) is he indifference price of he call opion deal. 8

9 This definiion of a price for he call opion depends on q 0 : he iniial number of socks in he porfolio. This echoes he fac ha, in pracice, building he iniial posiion (as compued in a classical model) is usually cosly for opions wih a large nominal. This inerpreaion of θ also enables us o see he inequaliy of Proposiion 1 in a differen manner. When µ = r = 0, hen he price in our seing is always greaer han he price when here is no execuion cos (Bachelier model). 7 Our focus now is on he funcion θ because i is he price of he call opion. Our firs resul on θ saes ha i is a convex funcion of q: Proposiion 2. For (, S) [0, T ] R, q R θ(, q, S) is a convex funcion. Remark 6. We canno expec he same resul for S because he final payoff is no coninuous in S in general (see he physical delivery case). The main propery for θ is he following PDE characerizaion: Proposiion 3. Le us inroduce H(p) = sup ρ ρ m pρ L(ρ). θ is a viscosiy soluion of he following equaion: θ + rθ + (µ rs)q µ S θ 1 2 σ2 2 SSθ 1 2 γσ2 e r(t ) ( S θ q) 2 + V H( q θ) = 0, wih he erminal condiion θ(t, q, S) = Π(q, S) in he classical sense. The PDE saisfied by θ is a nonlinear equaion and, in paricular, he price of he call opion is no proporional o he nominal. To go from a nominal equal o N o a nominal equal o 1, we inroduce he funcion θ defined by: θ(, q, S) = 1 θ(, N q, S). N Then, θ saisfies he following equaion in he viscosiy sense: θ + r θ + (µ rs) q µ S θ 1 2 σ2 2 SS θ 1 2 γnσ2 e r(t ) ( S θ q) 2 + V N H( q θ) = 0, wih he erminal condiion θ(t, q, S) = 1 Π(N q, S). N 7 The price of a call (wih a uniary nominal and when r = 0) in he Bachelier model is given by: [ (S ] ( ),S E T K) S K = (S K)Φ + σ + σ ( ) S K T ϕ T σ, T where ϕ and Φ are respecively he probabiliy densiy funcion and he cumulaive disribuion funcion of a sandard normal variable. 9

10 In oher words, we need o rescale he risk aversion parameer γ, he marke volume process (V ), and he liquidaion penaly funcion L in order o go from a call of nominal N o a call of nominal 1. Each erm in he PDE θ = }{{} rθ + (µ rs)q µ S θ 1 }{{} 2 σ2 SS 2 θ 1 (I) }{{} 2 γσ2 e r(t ) ( S θ q) 2 + V H( q θ) }{{}}{{} (II) (V) (III) (IV) has a specific inerpreaion: The erm (I) is he classical erm linked o discouning a risk-free rae r. The erm (II) corresponds o he premium linked o holding shares insead of cash. If indeed one holds q shares, on average he MM wealh is increased by µq per uni of ime, whereas he amoun of cash equivalen o q shares (ha is qs) increases he MM wealh by rqs per uni of ime. The erm (III) is linked o he dynamics of he sock price. The inerdependence beween he number of shares q in he hedging porfolio and he dynamics of he price occurs hrough (IV), and more precisely hrough he erm ( S θ q) 2. Alhough here is no in his model because he marke is incomplee, his erm measures he difference beween he firs derivaive of he opion price wih respec o he price of he underlying asse and he number of shares in he hedging porfolio: i looks herefore like he measure of a mis-hedge. And, (V) is he classical erm in he lieraure on opimal execuion. I models he execuion coss and he paricipaion limi ρ m. In paricular, he opimal paricipaion rae a ime is ρ (, q, S ) = v (,q,s ) V = H ( q θ(, q, S )). Remark 7. If we replace µ wih rs and σ wih σs, hen he erms (I), (II) and (III) are exacly he same as hose in he Black-Scholes PDE. Furhermore, he parial differenial equaion saisfied by θ is (surprisingly) no derived from a conrol problem because is neiher convex, nor concave. (p q, p S ) 1 2 γσ2 e r(t ) (p S q) 2 + V H(p q ) In fac, i derives from a zero-sum game (see he appendix of [4]) in which he firs player conrols q hrough dq = v d, 10

11 and player 2 conrols he drif of he price ds = (µ + α )d + σdw. The payoff of he zero-sum game associaed wih he above equaion is: [ˆ T E e (L r(t ) 0 ( v V ) V e r(t ) 2γσ 2 (α + γe r(t ) σ 2 q ) 2 ] 1 2 γer(t ) σ 2 q 2 + (rs µ)q )d + Π(q T, S T ), where player 1 minimizes and player 2 maximizes. 4 The problem wih permanen marke impac We now urn o he case where here is a permanen marke impac. To say in he framework of Gaheral s paper on permanen marke impac wihou dynamic arbirage [14], we consider in his secion ha µ = r = 0, and we use he linear form of permanen marke impac inroduced in Secion 2. We will show ha, up o a change of variables, he problem is from a mahemaical poin of view he same as in he absence of permanen marke impac. To avoid dynamic arbirage we have o specify L. A ime T, if one wans o go from a porfolio wih q shares o a porfolio wih q shares, one mus pay he liquidiy coss relaed o he volume ransaced. This is modelled by l(q q), as in he previous case wihou permanen marke impac. However, we mus also ake permanen marke impac ino accoun. The amoun paid o go from a porfolio wih q shares a ime T o a porfolio wih q a ime T is (on average and ignoring emporary marke impac): [ˆ T ] E dq S S T T ˆ T = (q q)s T + k(q q )dq T = (q q)s T k(q q) 2. Hence, we define L by: L(q, q ) = l( q q ) k(q q) 2. Le us now come o he change of variables. In he previous secion, we showed ha u(, x, q, S), in he absence of permanen marke impac, can be wrien as: u(, x, q, S) = exp ( γ (x + qs θ(, q, S))). 11

12 Using he same mehod as in Secion 3, we show ha, wih permanen marke impac, u can be wrien as: ( ( u(, x, q, S) = exp γ x + qs 1 2 kq2 + 1 )) 2 kq2 0 θ(, q, S k(q q 0)). In oher words, we inroduce he funcion: θ(, q, S) = x + q( S + k(q q 0 )) 1 2 kq kq ( u(, γ log x, q, S ) + k(q q 0 )). As in he previous case, θ(0, q 0, S 0 ) is he price of he call a ime 0 when he deal sars wih an exchange of q 0 shares agains q 0 S 0 in cash. Remark 8. The new variable S = S k(q q 0 ) is he price from which we remove he influence of he permanen marke impac. Now, using he same echniques as in Secion 3, we prove he following proposiion: Proposiion 4. Le us assume ha µ = r = 0. Then, θ is a viscosiy soluion of he following equaion: wih he erminal condiion θ 1 2 σ2 2 S Sθ 1 2 γσ2 ( Sθ q) 2 + V H( q θ) = 0, θ(t, q, S) = Π(q, S + k(q q 0 )) 1 2 kq kq2 0 The inroducion of a permanen marke impac only changes he erminal condiion of he PDE. In he case of a cash selemen, he erminal condiion is: θ(t, q, S) = N( S + k(q q 0 ) K) + + l(q) kq2 0. In he case of a physical selemen, he erminal condiion is: +1 S+k(q q0 ) K θ(t, q, S) = N( S + k(q q 0 ) K) + (l(n q) + 12 ) kn(n 2q) + 1 S+k(q q0 )<K l(q) kq Numerical mehods We now presen wo numerical mehods o approximae he soluion of our hedging and pricing problem. 12

13 5.1 Numerical mehod for he PDE Proposiion 3 and Proposiion 4 show ha he hedging and pricing problem boils down o solving a parial differenial equaion in dimension 3. Facoring ou he nominal of he call, he PDE is: 1 θ = r θ + (µ rs) q µ S θ 2 σ2 SS 2 θ 1 }{{} 2 γnσ2 e r(t ) ( S θ q) 2 + V H( q θ), }{{}} N {{} (A) (B) (C) wih a final condiion ha depends on he naure of he selemen and on wheher or no we consider permanen marke impac (if he permanen marke impac is aken ino accoun, hen we consider µ = r = 0). To approximae a soluion of his PDE wih he erminal condiion corresponding o our problem, we firs spli he equaion ino hree pars o consider a numerical scheme based on operaor spliing. For (A), we consider an implici finie difference scheme. We always sar wih his sep ha smoohes he erminal condiion because here is a singulariy a ime T. For (B), we use a monoonic explici scheme à la Godunov, excep a he boundaries (see below). For (C), we use a semi-lagrangian mehod because i provides he opimal conrol direcly (see [13] for more deails on he classical numerical mehods for HJB equaions). Regarding he boundary condiions, we can use a grid for q ha is sufficienly large o search for an opimum inside he domain. However, his is no he case as far as he finie differences in S are concerned (his is relaed o he fac ha θ describes a zero-sum game). Therefore, we need o specify boundary condiions for he minimum and maximum values of S (S min is assumed o be far below he srike K, and S max is assumed o be far greaer han K). Because θ is he price of he call opion, a naural condiion is SS θ = 0 a S min and S max. However, his condiion leads o a globally non-monoone scheme (see he seminal paper by Crandall and Lions on monoone schemes [24]). In pracice, his scheme provides good resuls (see below). However, because i requires seing boundary condiions ha are no exacly in line wih he underlying financial problem, we also develop an alernaive mehod. 5.2 Tree-based approach The above numerical mehod is based on a finie difference scheme and herefore requires arificially seing he boundary condiions. A way o avoid seing he boundary condiions is o use a ree-based approach. The underlying idea is o discreize he problem and o use he same change of variables as in he coninuous model o obain a way o approximae θ. We consider he subdivision 0 = 0,..., j = j,..., J = J = T. We also consider he sequences (X j ) j, (q j ) j, (S j ) j defined by he following equaions: S j+1 = S j + µ + σ ǫ j+1, where he ǫ j s are i.i.d. wih E[ǫ j ] = 0 and V[ǫ j ] = 1, 13

14 q j+1 = q j + v j, X j+1 = e r X j v j S j L ( vj V j+1 ) V j+1. Our goal is o maximize over {(v j ) 0 j<j, v j ρ m V j+1 }, he following expression: E [ exp ( γ (X J + q J S J Π(q J, S J )))]. For ha purpose we inroduce he value funcions: u j (x, q, S) = E [ exp ( γ (X J + q J S J Π(q J, S J ))) X j = x, q j = q, S j = S]. The Bellman equaion associaed wih he problem is: j {0,..., J 1}, u j (x, q, S) = [ ( ) v sup E u j+1 (e r x vs L V j+1, q + v, S + µ + σ ] ǫ j+1 ), v ρ mv j+1 V j+1 and u J (x, q, S) = exp ( γ (x + qs Π(q, S))). ( ) If we wrie u j (x, q, S) = exp γe r(j j) (x + qs θ j (q, S)), hen he Bellman equaion becomes: θ j (q, S) = e r(j j) γ inf loge v ρ mv j+1 [ exp (γe r(j (j+1)) ( qs(e r 1) + L (q + v )(µ + σ ǫ) + θ j+1 (q + v, S + µ + σ ǫ) ))] ( v V j+1 ), 0 j < J, V j+1 and θ J (q, S) = Π(q, S). We now consider a rinomial ree ha corresponds o α wih probabiliy 1 2α 2 ǫ = 0 wih probabiliy 1 1 α 2 α wih probabiliy 1 2α 2, 14

15 where α > 1. 8 Each node of he ree represens a pair (j, S j ) where S j {S 0 +µj +σ pα, j p j}, and he ree is naurally recombining because he drif is consan and he noise symmerical. A a given node (j, S j ), we compue he value of θ j (q, S j ) for q on a specified grid (he naural boundaries when µ = r = 0 are q min = 0 and q max = N for a call opion) by using he above recursive equaions. In paricular, if he marke volume is assumed o be consan (equal o V ), hen he sep q of he grid in q should be such ha ρ m V is a muliple of q. Recursively, by backward inducion, we end up a node (0, S 0 ) wih he price of he call for any q 0. Also, we ge he opimal sraegy a each node as a funcion of q. This mehod is preferable over he firs one because here is no issue wih respec o he boundaries in S. However, like all ree mehods, i ignores he risk of an imporan price move over a shor period of ime. 6 Numerical examples and comparison wih he Bachelier model 6.1 Examples wihou permanen marke impac To exemplify he use of our model and he effeciveness of our numerical mehods, we consider he following reference scenario wih no permanen marke impac. This reference scenario corresponds o rounded values for he sock Toal SA (he mos imporan componen of he CAC 40 Index): S 0 = 45, σ = 0.6 day 1/2 i corresponds o an annual volailiy approximaely equal o 21%, T = 63 days, V = shares day 1, N = shares, L(ρ) = η ρ 1+φ wih η = 0.1 sock 1 day 1, and φ = For our reference case, we consider µ = r = 0. Our choice for he risk aversion parameer is γ = We consider a call opion wih srike K = 45 (a-he-money call opion). 8 In examples, we consider α = 2. 15

16 Also, we consider (by defaul) he case where ρ m = 500% so ha, in pracice, here is no consrain on he paricipaion rae. For he erminal cos, we use he form presened in Remark 4 wih a paricipaion rae equal o ρ m. Figure 6.2 presens he oucomes when q 0 = 0.5N (iniial Bachelier ) in he case of a physical delivery for he rajecory of he sock price (compaible wih he srucure of he ree wih four levels of nodes per day) represened in Figure 6.1. This rajecory corresponds o an exercise of he opion a ime T. Similar resuls could be obained in he case of S T < K. We use he wo numerical mehods presened above o illusrae he opimal sraegy, and we also plo he Bachelier as a benchmark. Figure 6.2 shows ha he finie difference scheme and he ree-based mehod provide almos idenical resuls as far as he opimal sraegy is concerned. Moreover, his opimal sraegy is differen from he hedging sraegy in a Bachelier model. As opposed o oher papers in he lieraure, he opimal sraegy in our model does no oscillae around he Bachelier bu insead is conservaive. Our sraegy is smooher because he rader avoids buying oo many shares o avoid selling hem aferwards, due o he execuion coss. Price Price Srike Time Figure 6.1: Trajecory of he sock price. 16

17 q/n Tree PDE Bachelier Dela Time Figure 6.2: Resuls wih he ree-based mehod and he finie difference scheme (PDE). In erms of prices, he resuls obained wih he PDE mehod and wih he ree-based approach are very close (Table 6.1). However, he difference beween he Bachelier price and he price in our approach is significan. 9 Model/Mehod Bachelier Tree-Based approach PDE approach Price Table 6.1: Prices of he call opion for he wo numerical mehods. 6.2 Influence of he parameers We now illusrae he main drivers of he difference beween our approach and he Bachelier model. Execuion coss Firs, because here are execuion coss in he model, we illusrae he role of η. We consider he previous scenario wih a physical delivery bu wih η {0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2}. The resuls obained wih he ree-based approach are shown in Figure We divide he prices by N o obain meaningful figures. 17

18 q/n Bachelier Dela ea = 0.01 ea = 0.05 ea = 0.1 ea = Time Figure 6.3: Opimal sraegies for differen values of η (ree-based approach). The effec of execuion coss is clear: he higher he execuion coss, he smooher he opimal sraegy. The rader wans o avoid cosly erraic changes in his or her porfolio because of execuion coss. Furhermore, he opimal porfolio ges closer o 0.5N when he execuion coss increase. This is he same idea as above: because he rader does no know wheher he or she will evenually have o deliver N shares or 0, he or she wans o avoid round rips. Therefore, he rader says closer o 0.5N when he liquidiy of he underlying asse decreases. Table 6.2 shows ha he price of he call increases wih η, as expeced. η (Bachelier) Price of he call Table 6.2: Prices of he call opion for differen levels of liquidiy (ree-based approach). Iniial posiion Anoher parameer linked o liquidiy is q 0. To undersand he role of he iniial number of shares, we show in Figure 6.4 he opimal sraegies for q 0 = 0 and q 0 = 0.5N. To be even more realisic, we add a paricipaion consrain ρ m = 50% in Figure

19 q/n Iniial Porfolio wih No Share Iniial Porfolio wih Bachelier Dela Time Figure 6.4: Opimal porfolio for differen values of q 0 (ree-based approach). q/n Iniial Porfolio wih No Share Iniial Porfolio wih Bachelier Dela Time Figure 6.5: Opimal porfolio for differen values of q 0 when ρ m = 50% (ree-based approach). The associaed prices are given in Table 6.3. Values of he parameers q 0 = 0 q 0 = 0, ρ m = 50% q 0 = 0.5N q 0 = 0.5N, ρ m = 50% Price of he call Table 6.3: Prices of he call opion for differen values of he iniial porfolio and differen paricipaion consrains (ree-based approach). Table 6.3 shows ha here is a subsanial difference beween he price of he call opion 19

20 when q 0 = 0 and when q 0 N = 0.5, especially when a paricipaion consrain is imposed. The raionale for his difference is he cos of building a posiion consisen wih he risk linked o he opion. This is clearly seen in Figures 6.4 and 6.5. The wo porfolios are almos he same afer a few days. However, he firs few days are used by he rader o buy shares in order o obain a porfolio close o he porfolio he or she would have had, had he sared wih he in he Bachelier model. Price risk and risk aversion One of he main parameers when dealing wih opions is volailiy. Here, he influence of he parameer σ is clear. The more volaile he sock, he closer o he Bachelier he hedging sraegy is. Also, he price of a call is an increasing funcion of σ. Wha is ineresing when i comes o risk is no σ bu γ, he risk aversion parameer, because here are wo risks of wo differen naures: The firs risk is linked o he opional dimension of he conrac: he rader has o deliver eiher N shares or none. Being averse o his risk encourages he rader o say close o a neural porfolio wih q = 0.5N. The second risk is linked o he price a which he shares are bough or sold: he rader knows ha, a ime T, his or her porfolio will consis of eiher 0 or N shares depending on S T, and he price he rader pays o buy and sell he shares is random. Being averse o price risk encourages he rader o have a porfolio ha evolves in he same direcion as he price, as is he case in he Bachelier model. Several values of γ are considered in Figures 6.6 and 6.7 o see hese wo effecs. Figure 6.6 shows ha he second effec dominaes for small values of γ. When γ is really small, he rader is no really ineresed in hedging and he or she jus wans o minimize he cos of delivering he shares (if he opion is exercised). Therefore, he hedging sraegy is smooh for very small values of γ. As γ increases, he hedging sraegy follows he price movemen more and more, like he Bachelier : his is he second risk. Now, o see he firs effec, we need o consider high values of γ. Figure 6.7 shows ha when γ increases above a cerain hreshold, hen he hedging sraegy becomes more and more conservaive and close o 0.5N: he rader does no wan o buy oo much because he or she is afraid of being forced o sell aferwards. 20

21 q/n gamma = 2e 7 gamma = 5e 8 gamma = 2e 8 gamma = 1e Time Figure 6.6: Opimal porfolio for small values of γ (ree-based approach). q/n gamma = 2e 7 gamma = 1e 6 gamma = 2e 6 gamma = 5e Time Figure 6.7: Opimal porfolio for large values of γ (ree-based approach). In erms of prices, he effec however is unambiguous. Table 6.4 shows ha he more risk averse he rader is, he more he or she charges for he risk. 21

22 γ Price of he call Table 6.4: Prices of he call opion for differen values of γ (ree-based approach). Drif and ineres raes We have discussed he role of he main parameers. To finish his secion on comparaive saics, we focus on he respecive roles of r and µ. In he classical Bachelier (or Black-Scholes) seing, here is no place for he drif of he underlying asse because he payoff can be replicaed. Here, he siuaion is differen. There is indeed, in addiion o he hedging problem, anoher problem of porfolio managemen in which he rader has o choose he opimal repariion beween cash and sock. Figure 6.8, where µ = 0, shows ha an increase of r from 0% o 5% leads o wo effecs. As in he classical heory, an increase in he ineres rae leads o more shares in he hedging porfolio. This is wha we observe, excep a he end of he period. The second effec, explaining he behaviour near ime T, is a pure porfolio managemen effec. Because a cash posiion is profiable (r = 5%) compared o a long posiion in he sock, he rader pus less weighs on socks compared o he siuaion r = 0. q/n r = 0.05 r = Time Figure 6.8: Opimal porfolio for differen values of r (ree-based approach). The same porfolio managemen effec is a play as far as µ is concerned. When µ increases, holding shares is more profiable and he hedging porfolio conains more shares (see Figure 6.9). 22

23 q/n mu = 0.05 mu = Time Figure 6.9: Opimal porfolio for differen values of µ (ree-based approach). 6.3 The difference beween physical and cash selemen One imporan difference beween our model and mos of he models in he lieraure is ha we differeniae beween physical and cash selemens. To illusrae his poin, we use he reference scenario again bu wih a paricipaion consrain ρ m = 50%. Figure 6.10 shows ha here is an imporan difference beween he wo ypes of selemens when he nominal is large. In boh cases, he opimal sraegy consiss of buying (selling) when he price of he underlying asse is moving up (down) o hedge he posiion. Hence, when he price S is far above K for close o T, he hedging porfolio conains a large number of shares. In he case of a physical delivery, his is fine because he rader has o deliver N shares a expiry if he price says above K. However, in he case of a cash selemen, he rader needs o deliver cash. Figure 6.10 shows ha, in order o have cash (and in fac o liquidae he posiion), he rader progressively sells his or her shares near expiry (given he final cos funcion we considered, he rader coninues o sell wih a paricipaion rae o he marke equal o 50% afer ime T ). To explain wha happens far from he expiry dae, we rely on a second and more suble effec. Because he porfolio conains a lo of shares near expiry if S is high, he acual payoff depends on S no only hrough (S K) + bu also hrough l(q), which depends implicily on S. Hence, if one applies he classical reasoning, he hedging sraegy consiss in buying more shares of he underlying sock when he price is increasing. This is he raionale for he difference we observe beween he wo sraegies in Figure 6.10, excep near ime T. 23

24 q/n Cash Selemen Physical Selemen Time Figure 6.10: The difference beween a physical selemen and a cash selemen (ree-based approach). Table 6.5 shows ha a cash selemen is more expensive han a physical selemen. The underlying reason is he final liquidaion cos when he opion expires in he money. Cash selemen ρ m = 50% Physical selemen ρ m = 50% Price of he call Table 6.5: Prices of he call opion for cash delivery and physical delivery (ree-based approach). 6.4 Comparison wih he Bachelier model Proposiion 1 argues ha he price in he Bachelier model is lower han he price in our model when µ = r = k = 0. This is naural because our model includes addiional coss linked o liquidiy. An imporan poin hen is o undersand wha happens in pracice when one uses he Bachelier model and has o pay he execuion coss when rebalancing he -hedging porfolio (a discree poins in ime). This scenario highlighs he fundamenal rade-off beween a low mis-hedge (when -hedging is done a high-frequency) and low execuion coss (when -hedging is done a low-frequency). The formula for he in a Bachelier model (when r = 0) is: ( ) B S K = P [S T K S ] = Φ σ T In order o carry ou a fair comparison beween our model and he Bachelier model, we consider several frequencies for he -hedging process. 24

25 Le 0 = 0,..., i = iδ,..., M = Mδ be a subdivision of [0, T ]. If a ime i he of he Bachelier model is B i, hen we assume ha he difference in (i.e., B i B i 1 ) is execued using a perfec TWAP algorihm over he period [ i, i+1 ]. In oher words, he execuion speed is 10 : v = v (0) := q 1 q 0 δ v (i) := q i+1 q i δ = B 0 q 0 δ = B i B i 1 δ = 0 if < 1 for [ i, i+1 ), 1 i < M. Over each ime inerval [ i, i+1 ) he price obained by he rader (excluding he execuion coss) is he TWAP over he period: TWAP i,i+1 = 1 δ ˆ i+1 i S d. A classical resul on Brownian bridges leads o he fac ha TWAP i,i+1 {S i, S i+1 } is Gaussian wih: E[TWAP i,i+1 S i, S i+1 ] = S i + S i+1 2 and V[TWAP i,i+1 S i, S i+1 ] = σ2 δ 12. Now, he execuion coss can be compued as: ˆ T 0 L ( ) v V d = V M 1 i=0 ˆ i+1 i L ( ) M 1 v V d = V δ L V i=1 ( ) v(i) For he erminal condiion, we consider he case of a physical selemen, and he erminal condiion of Remark 4 wih he value of ρ m of he reference scenario. To obain saisics on he PnL when using he Bachelier model, we consider a Mone-Carlo algorihm wih 10,000 draws. We draw each rajecory (S i ) i for he price on he ime grid ( i ) i. The rajecories are drawn by using Gaussian incremens wih a sandard deviaion parameer σ δ. Then, we draw values for he TWAPs, and we compue a sample PnL associaed wih our sraegy for he sample rajecory (S i ) i. The mean and variance of he PnL (in fac PnL) for several values of M (he number of porfolio rebalancings) are given in Figures 6.11 and To compare he oucomes from he Bachelier model o he oucomes from our model, he same Mone-Carlo procedure is used wih 253 poins in ime (four poins per day), bu he number of shares o be bough or sold over each period [ i, i+1 ) is compued using he PDE mehod o approximae θ. 10 We assume ha q 0 = B 0. V 25

26 Mean Opimal Sraegy Number of Rebalancings Figure 6.11: Average cos of he hedging sraegy. Variance Opimal Sraegy Number of Rebalancings Figure 6.12: Variance of he cos of he hedging sraegy. As expeced, Figure 6.11 shows ha he cos of -hedging increases wih he frequency of he rebalancings. The level of he average coss when one uses our model corresponds approximaely o M = 40 rebalancings. However, he variance of our sraegy is very small compared o he variance of a sraegy ha consiss of M = 40 rebalancings wih he Bachelier. In fac, he variance of he PnL associaed wih our sraegy is smaller han he variance of he PnL associaed wih he Bachelier sraegy for any values of he number of rebalancings. In he case of -hedging, he variance indeed decreases wih M for small values of M bu 26

27 reaches a minimum value (greaer han he variance of our sraegy) and hen increases for large values of M because of he presence of execuion coss, which generaes variance. 6.5 Numerical examples wih permanen marke impac So far, we have only considered he case where here is no permanen marke impac. As Proposiion 4 argues, adding permanen marke impac only changes he final condiion of he PDE. We use he finie difference scheme o solve he PDE of our reference case when k = The opimal sraegies are given in Figure 6.13, and he impaced prices are represened in Figure q/n k = 3e 7 k = Time Figure 6.13: Opimal sraegy wih and wihou permanen marke impac. Taking he permanen marke impac ino accoun leads o buying more rapidly when he price goes up and selling more rapidly when he price goes down. In fac, here are several effecs a play. The firs effec is mechanical: when he price of he underlying asse goes up, he posiion in he underlying asse goes up and i pushes he price of he underlying asse up. Conversely, when he price of he underlying asse goes down, he posiion in he underlying asse goes down and ha pushes he price of he underlying asse down. The second effec is sraegic: he rader is risk averse and he or she prefers o know wheher he or she will have o liquidae a ime T. Hence when he rader s posiion is above a cerain hreshold, and he price is far above he srike, he or she can buy o push he price up o decrease he level of uncerainy. 27

28 Furher, because of he permanen marke impac, he rader migh be emped o sell shares o push he price down so ha he opion expires worhless. We do no observe his effec in Figure 6.13 (in our experimens, i occurs someimes when he price nears he srike). Price Impaced Price Unimpaced Price Srike Time Figure 6.14: Impac of he sraegy on he price of he underlying asse. In erms of prices, we obain he resuls presened in Table 6.6. The able shows ha he difference is subsanial because he price a which shares are bough is higher and he price a which shares are sold is lower. k = 0 k = Price of he call Table 6.6: Prices of he call opion wih and wihou permanen marke impac (PDE approach). Conclusion In his paper, we presen a new model o price and hedge opions in he case of an illiquid underlying asse or when he nominal of he opion is oo large o neglec he execuion coss. We show ha he price of a call opion when he execuion coss are aken ino accoun is he soluion of a 3-variable nonlinear PDE ha can be solved using various numerical echniques. The comparisons o he use of classical models show he relevance of our approach. Alhough our paper focuses on he case of a call opion, i can be generalized o oher opions, wih or wihou physical delivery a mauriy. For insance, [15] uses a similar framework o price 28

29 an Acceleraed Share Repurchase conrac an execuion conrac ha can be seen as a Bermudan opion wih an Asian payoff. Appendix: Proofs Proof of Lemma 1: By definiion, d(e r X ) = e r ( v S d V L ( v V ) ) d. Therefore, e rt X T e r x = ˆ T e rs ( v s S s ds V s L ˆ T = e r qs e rt q T S T + q s e rs ( rs s ds + µds + σdw s ) where we used an inegraion by pars. Reorganising he erms resuls in: ( vs V s ˆ T ) ) ds e rs V s L ( vs V s ) ds, X T + q T S T = e r(t ) (x + qs) (ˆ T ˆ T +e r(t ) e r(s ) q s (µ rs s )ds + e r(s ) q s σdw s ˆ T e r(s ) V s L ( vs V s ) ) ds. Proof of Proposiion 1: We define I(, q, S, v) = ˆ T ˆ T ˆ T e r(s ) q s (µ rs s )ds + e r(s ) V s L ( vs V s e r(s ) q s σdw s ) ds e r(t ) Π(q T, S T ), and [ ( )] w(, q, S) = inf J (q, S, v) = inf E exp γe r(t ) I(, q, S, v). v A v A 29

30 I is sraighforward o verify ha I(, q, S, 0) has a Laplace ransform defined onr. Therefore, [ ( )] w(, q, S) E exp γe r(t ) I(, q, S, 0) < +. This proves ha θ is bounded from above. Coming o he oher inequaliy, Jensen s inequaliy gives: ( ) w(, q, S) inf exp γe r(t ) E[I(, q, S, v)] v A ( [ˆ ]) T exp γe r(t ) E e r(s ) q s (µ rs s )ds e r(t ) N(S T K) + Because q is bounded and because S s is a Gaussian random variable for all s, w(, q, s) >. Therefore, θ is also bounded from below. If µ = r = 0, hen θ(, q, S) = 1 γ log(w(, q, S)) NE [(S T K) + ]. Proof of Proposiion 2: We firs prove ha I is a concave funcion of (v, q). Given [0, T ] and S R, he funcions (q, v) ˆ T ˆ T e r(s ) qs,q,v (µ rs s )ds = e (q r(s ) + ˆ s ) v u du (µ rs s )ds and (q, v) ˆ T ˆ T e r(s ) qs,q,v σdw s = e (q r(s ) + ˆ s ) v u du σdw s are linear and hence concave. Because L is convex, he following funcion is concave: 30

31 ˆ T (q, v) e r(s ) V s L ( vs V s ) ds. Because Π(q T, S T ) is a convex funcion of q T = q + T v s ds, (q, v) I(, q, S, v) is a concave funcion (sum of four concave funcions). To go on, we need a lemma (which is a consequence of Hölder inequaliy): Lemma 2. Le X and Y be wo random variables. Le λ [0, 1]. The following inequaliy holds: loge[exp (λx + (1 λ) Y )] λ loge [exp (X)] + (1 λ) loge [exp (Y )] Le us now recall ha θ(, q, S) = e r(t ) γ [ ( )] inf loge exp γe r(t ) I(, q, S, v). v A If [0, T ], S R, ˆq, ˇq R and λ [0, 1], hen for ˆv, ˇv A, we have he following inequaliy: θ(, λˆq + (1 λ) ˇq, S) e r(t ) Using Lemma 2 and he concaviy of I, we have: γ [ ( )] loge exp γe r(t ) I (, λˆq + (1 λ) ˇq, λˆv + (1 λ) ˇv, S) e r(t ) [ ( )] θ(, λˆq + (1 λ) ˇq, S) λ loge exp γe r(t ) I (, ˆq, ˆv, S) γ e r(t ) [ ( )] + (1 λ) loge exp γe r(t ) I (, ˇq, ˇv, S). γ Because his inequaliy holds for all ˆv, ˇv A, we can ake he infima over hem on he righ-hand side: e r(t ) θ(, λˆq + (1 λ) ˇq, S) λ γ [ ( )] inf loge exp γe r(t ) I (, ˆq, ˆv, S) ˆv A e r(t ) + (1 λ) inf loge γ ˇv A λθ(, ˆq, S) + (1 λ) θ(, ˇq, S), 31 [ ( )] exp γe r(t ) I (, ˇq, ˇv, S)

32 which proves he Proposiion. Proof of Proposiion 3: Given he hypoheses, i is classical o prove ha u is a viscosiy soluion of: u µ S u 1 { ( ( ) ) } v 2 σ2 SS 2 u sup v q u + rx vs L V x u v ρ mv V = 0, Le us consider ϕ C 1,1,2 ((0, T ) R R) and (, q, S ) such ha: θ ϕ has a local maximum a (, q, S ), θ (, q, S ) = ϕ(, q, S ). [ ] Le us define ψ(, x, q, S) = exp γe r(t ) (x + qs ϕ(, q, S)) C 1,1,1,2 ((0, T ) R R R). Because θ(, q, S) = x + qs + γ log( u(, x, q, S)), x R, (, x, q, S ) is such ha u ψ has a local minimum a (, x, q, S ). e r(t ) Using he super-soluion propery of u, we obain: ψ(, x, q, S ) + µ S ψ(, x, q, S ) σ2 SS 2 ψ(, x, q, S ) ( ( ) ) } v + sup v ρmv {v q ψ(, x, q, S ) + rx vs L V x ψ(, x, q, S ) [ As ψ(, x, q, S) = exp γe r(t ) (x + qs ϕ(, q, S)) V ], we have: 0. ψ(, x, q, S) = γe r(t ) ψ(, x, q, S) ϕ(, q, S)+γre r(t ) ψ(, x, q, S) (x + qs ϕ(, q, S)) x ψ(, x, q, S) = γe r(t ) ψ(, x, q, S) q ψ(, x, q, S) = γe r(t ) ψ(, x, q, S)(S q ϕ(, q, S)) S ψ(, x, q, S) = γe r(t ) ψ(, x, q, S)(q S ϕ(, q, S)) SS 2 ψ(, x, q, S) = γ2 e 2r(T ) ψ(, x, q, S)(q S ϕ(, q, S)) 2 +γe r(t ) ψ(, x, q, S) SS 2 ϕ(, q, S)) Hence: 0 γe r(t ) ψ(, x, q, S ) ( ϕ(, q, S ) r(q S ϕ(, q, S )) +µ(q S ϕ(, q, S )) 1 2 σ2 2 SSϕ(, q, S ) 1 2 γσ2 e r(t ) (q S ϕ(, q, S )) 2 { ( ) } ) v + inf v q ϕ(, q, S ) L V. v ρ mv V 32

33 Therefore: 0 ϕ(, q, S ) + rϕ(, q, S ) + q (µ rs ) µ S ϕ(, q, S ) 1 2 σ2 2 SSϕ(, q, S ) 1 2 γσ2 e r(t ) (q S ϕ(, q, S )) 2 + V H( q ϕ(, q, S )). This proves ha θ is a sub-soluion of he equaion. The same reasoning applies o he super-soluion propery and his proves he resul. References [1] R. Almgren, N. Chriss, Opimal execuion of porfolio ransacions. Journal of Risk, 3, 5-40, [2] R. Almgren, C. Thum, E. Haupmann, H. Li. Direc esimaion of equiy marke impac. Risk, 18(7):58 62, [3] P. Bank, D. Baum, Hedging and porfolio opimizaion in financial markes wih a large rader, Mahemaical Finance, 14, 1-18, [4] M. Bardi, I. Capuzzo-Dolcea, Opimal conrol and viscosiy soluions of Hamilon- Jacobi-Bellman equaions, Springer, [5] B. Bouchard, G. Loeper, Almos-sure hedging wih permanen price impac, working paper, [6] G. Barles, H. M. Soner, Opion pricing wih ransacion coss and a nonlinear Black- Scholes equaion, Finance and Sochasics, 2, , [7] U. Çein, R. Jarrow, P. Proer, Liquidiy risk and arbirage pricing heory, Finance and Sochasics, 8, , [8] U. Çein, R. Jarrow, P. Proer, M. Warachka, Pricing opions in an exended Black- Scholes economy wih illiquidiy: heory and empirical evidence, The Review of Financial Sudies, 19, , [9] U. Çein, L.C. Rogers, Modelling liquidiy effecs in discree ime, Mahemaical Finance, 17, 15-29, [10] U. Çein, H. M. Soner, N. Touzi, Opion hedging for small invesors under liquidiy coss, Finance and Sochasics, 14: , Jan [11] J. Cvianić, I. Karazas, Hedging and porfolio opimizaion under ransacion coss: a maringale approach, Mahemaical Finance, 6, , [12] J. Cvianić, H. Pham, N. Touzi, A closed-form soluion o he problem of superreplicaion under ransacion coss, Finance and Sochasics, 3(1), 35-54,